Page images
PDF
EPUB

monly revisit the thoughts together. The epiftles under confideration furnish the two following remarkable instances of this species of agreement:

Ephef. ch. iv. ver. 24." And that ye put "on the new man, which after God is cre"ated in righteoufnefs and true holiness; "wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour, for "we are members one of another*.

46

[ocr errors]

"Lie not one to

Colof. ch. iii. ver. 9. "another; feeing that ye have put off the "old man, with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in "knowledge +."

""

The vice of lying," or a correction of that vice, does not feem to bear any nearer relation to the "putting on the new man,' than a reformation in any other article of

[ocr errors]

*Ephef. ch, iv. ver. 24, 25. Kai evduσaobai tov navor ανθρωπον, τον καλα Θεον κλισθεντα εν δικαιοσύνη και οσιοτήλι της αληθείας διο αποθεμενοι το ψεύδος, λαλειτε αλήθειαν εγα; Θα μετα τα πλησιον αυτό οτι εσμεν αλληλων μέλη.

+ Colof. ch. iii. ver. 9. Μη ψεύδεσθε εις αλλήλες, απεκδυο σαμενοι τον παλαιον ανθρωπον, συν ταις πράξεσιν αυτού, και ενδυσάμενοι τον νεον, τον ανακαινώμενον εις επίγνωσιν

morals,

morals. Yet thefe two ideas, we fee, ftand in both epistles in immediate connection.

66

Ephef. ch. v. ver. 20, 21. Giving "thanks always for all things unto God and "the Father, in the name of our Lord "Jefus Chrift; fubmitting yourselves one "to another, in the fear of God. Wives, "fubmit yourselves unto your own huf"bands, as unto the Lord*"

"Whatsoever ye

Colof. ch. iii. ver. 17. "do, in word or deed, do all in the name "of the Lord Jefus, giving thanks to God “and the father by him. Wives, submit "yourselves unto your own husbands, as "it is fit in the Lord +.

In both these paffages, fubmiffion follows giving of thanks, without any fimilitude in the ideas which should account for the tranfition.

* Ephef. ch. v. ver. 20-22. Euxagıçuile; wartole væep φαντών, εν ονομαλι το Κυριο ημών Ιησε Χρις, τῷ Θεῷ και σαφές υποτασσομένοι άλλήλους εν φόβω Θεε. Αι γυναίκες, τους ιδίοις ανδρασιν υπολασσισθε, ως τη Κυρίω.

+ Colof. ch. iii. ver. 17. Και σαν ό, τι αν ποιητέ, εν λογῳ, η εν ἔργῳ, παντα εν ον ματι Κυρίε Ιησε, ευχαρισουνίες τῷ Θεῷ και πατρι δι' αυτού. υποτασσεσθε τοις ιδίοις ανδρασιν,

ως ανήκεν εν Κυρι.

[ocr errors]

It is not neceffary to purfue the comparifon between the two epiftles farther. The argument which refults from it ftands thus: No two other epiftles contain a circumstance which indicates that they were written at the fame, or nearly at the fame time. No two other epiftles exhibit fo many marks of correfpondency and refemblance, If the original which we afcribe to these two epiftles be the true one, that is, if they were both really written by St. Paul, and both fent to their respective destination by the fame meffenger, the fimilitude is, in all points, what should be expected to take place. If they were forgeries, then the mention of Tychicus in both epistles, and in a manner which fhews that he either carried or accompanied both epistles, was inferted for the purpose of accounting for their fimilitude; or else the structure of the epiftles was defignedly adapted to that circuftance; or, laftly, the conformity between the contents of the forgeries, and what is thus indirectly intimated concerning their date, was only a happy accident. Not one of these three fuppofitions will gain

credit with a reader who perufes the epiftles with attention, and who reviews the feveral examples we have pointed out, and the obfervations with which they were accompanied.

No. II.

There is fuch a thing as a peculiar word or phrafe cleaving, as it were, to the memory of a writer or speaker, and presenting itself to his utterance at every turn. When we obferve this, we call it a cant word, or a cant phrafe. It is a natural effect of habit; and would appear more frequently than it does, had not the rules of good writing taught the ear to be offended with the iteration of the fame found, and oftentimes caused us to reject, on that account, the word which offered itfelf firft to our recollection. With a writer who, like St. Paul, either knew not thefe rules, or difregarded them, fuch words will not be avoided. The truth is, an example of this kind runs through feveral of his epiftles, and in the epiftle before us abounds; and that is in the word riches (houros,) ufed metaphorically as an augmentative

mentative of the idea to which it happens to be fubjoined. Thus, "the riches of his glory," ""his riches in glory," "riches of the glory of his inheritance," "riches of the glory of this mystery," Rom. ch. ix. ver. 23, Ephef. ch. iii. ver. 16, Ephef. ch. i. ver. 18, Colof. ch. i. ver. 27; "riches of his grace,' twice in the Ephesians, ch. i. ver. 7, and ch. ii. ver. 7; "riches of the full affurance of understanding," Colof. ch. ii. ver. 2; "riches of his goodness," Rom. ch. ii. ver. 4; "riches of the wisdom of God," Rom. ch. xi.

[ocr errors]

ver. 33; "riches of Chrift," Ephef.ch. iii. ver. 8. In a like fenfe the adjective. Rom. ch. x. ver. 12, "rich unto all that call upon him;" Ephef. ch. ii. ver. 4, "rich in mercy;" 1 Tim. ch. vi. ver. 18, " rich in good works." Alfo the adverb, Colos. ch. iii. ver. 16, "let the word of Chrift dwell in you richly." This figurative ufe of the word, though fo familiar to St. Paul, does not occur in any part of the New Teftament, except once in the epistle of St. James, ch.ii. ver. 5. "Hath not God chofen the poor of "this world, rich in faith?" where it is ma

nifeftly fuggefted by the antithefis. I

pro

pofe

« EelmineJätka »